Luigi Storti v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 378

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBrewer
PartiesLUIGI STORTI, Appt. , v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS and Benjamin E. Bridges, Warden of the State Prison at Boston, Massachusetts
Docket NumberNo. 378
Decision Date02 December 1901

183 U.S. 138
22 S.Ct. 72
46 L.Ed. 120
LUIGI STORTI, Appt.,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS and Benjamin E. Bridges, Warden of the State Prison at Boston, Massachusetts.

No. 378.
Argued November 19, 20, 1901.
Decided December 2, 1901.

On May 23, 1901, the appellant filed in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts his petition in habeas corpus.

In that petition he stated that he was a citizen of Italy, and a subject of its King; that he was detained by the respondent under a warrant issued by the superior court of Suffolk county, reciting a conviction of murder, and directing the warden to inflict death by passing a current of electricity through him; that the time fixed for the execution of the sentence was on the week beginning April 7, 1901; that on April 9, 1901, the governor, with the advice of the council, issued a document purporting to respite the execution of sentence, the respite to expire on Saturday May 11, 1901; that on May 10, 1901, he presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the said circuit court, which petition was denied on May 11, 1901; that

Page 139

from such denial he forthwith claimed and was allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that such appeal was there pending and undetermined. The petition further stated that on May 10 he filed in the superior court for the county of Suffolk a motion for a new trial, in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts statutes, which motion was still pending and undetermined.

Upon these facts he asserted, first, that no law of Massachusetts provided for the punishment of a person sentenced to death, where the week appointed by the court for the execution had elapsed without execution and without any lawful action by the governor in the way of pardon, commutation, or respite, and therefore that the detention by the warden was contrary to the provisions of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution; second, that for the same reason the detention was contrary to the 3d article of the treaty between the United States of America and His Majesty the King of Italy (17 Stat. at L. 845), and contrary to § 2 of article 6 of the Constitution of the United States; third, that by § 28 of chapter 214 of the Public Statutes of Massachusetts the court in which the trial of an indictment is had may at the term of the trial, or within one year thereafter, grant a new trial; that therefore execution could not lawfully be done upon him until the expiration of a year from the term at which he was convicted, to wit, in this case before July 1, 1901, and that the execution of the sentence before that date would deprive him of his life without due process of law, and would deny to him the equal protection of the laws, contrary to the 1st section of the 14th Amendment; fourth, that for the same reason the execution of the sentence would be contrary to the 3d article of the treaty between the United States and Italy; fifth, that the execution of the sentence within the year would deprive him of his right under the statutes of Massachusetts to move for a new trial within the year, and of his right to be present at the decision of such motion, which right was guaranteed to him by article 23 of the treaty between the United States and Italy, which reads as follows: 'The citizens of either party shall have free access

Page 140

to the courts of justice, in order to maintain and defend their own rights, without any other conditions, restrictions, or taxes than such as are imposed upon the natives. They shall, therefore, be free to employ, in defense of their rights, such advocates, solicitors, notaries, agents, and factors as they may judge proper, in all their trials at law; and such citizens or agents shall have free opportunity to be present at the decisions and sentences of the tribunals in all cases which may concern them, and likewise at the taking of all examinations and evidences which may be exhibited in the said trials;' sixth, that the motion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 practice notes
  • Calley v. Callaway, No. 74-3471
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 10, 1975
    ...U.S. 96, 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105 (1906); Dimmick v. Tompkins, 194 U.S. 540, 24 S.Ct. 780, 48 L.Ed. 1110 (1904); Storti v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 138, 22 S.Ct. 72, 46 L.Ed. 120 (1901). Thus, "(h)abeas corpus was, prior to World War II, a limited form of relief in both the civilian and the......
  • United States v. Hendricks, No. 11141.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 2, 1954
    ...124, 18 S. Ct. 1, 42 L.Ed. 407; Crossley v. California, 1898, 168 U.S. 640, 18 S.Ct. 242, 42 L.Ed. 610; Storti v. Massachusetts, 1901, 183 U.S. 138, 22 S.Ct. 72, 46 L.Ed. 120; Rogers v. Peck, 1905, 199 U.S. 425, 26 S.Ct. 87, 50 L.Ed. 256; Felts v. Murphy, 1906, 201 U.S. 123, 26 S.Ct. 366, 5......
  • Fay v. People of State of New York Bove v. Same, Nos. 377 and 452
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1947
    ...1896, c. 378; N.Y.Laws 1901, c. 602. 13 The other cases cited in the per curiam affirmance were Storti v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 138, 141, 22 S.Ct. 72, 73, 46 L.Ed. 120, and Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U.S. 272, 15 S.Ct. 389, 39 L.Ed. 422, both of which disapprove the use of hab......
  • Delph v. Slayton, Civ. A. No. 72-C-17-H.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • May 8, 1972
    ...jurisdiction is a matter of state law exclusively. Rogers v. Peck, 199 U.S. 425, 26 S.Ct. 87, 50 L.Ed. 256 (1905); Storti v. Commonwealth, 183 U.S. 138, 22 S.Ct. 72, 46 L.Ed. 120 (1901); Booker v. Arkansas, 380 F.2d 240 (8th The third allegation of error raises the question of double jeopar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • Calley v. Callaway, No. 74-3471
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 10, 1975
    ...U.S. 96, 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105 (1906); Dimmick v. Tompkins, 194 U.S. 540, 24 S.Ct. 780, 48 L.Ed. 1110 (1904); Storti v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 138, 22 S.Ct. 72, 46 L.Ed. 120 (1901). Thus, "(h)abeas corpus was, prior to World War II, a limited form of relief in both the civilian and the......
  • United States v. Hendricks, No. 11141.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 2, 1954
    ...124, 18 S. Ct. 1, 42 L.Ed. 407; Crossley v. California, 1898, 168 U.S. 640, 18 S.Ct. 242, 42 L.Ed. 610; Storti v. Massachusetts, 1901, 183 U.S. 138, 22 S.Ct. 72, 46 L.Ed. 120; Rogers v. Peck, 1905, 199 U.S. 425, 26 S.Ct. 87, 50 L.Ed. 256; Felts v. Murphy, 1906, 201 U.S. 123, 26 S.Ct. 366, 5......
  • Fay v. People of State of New York Bove v. Same, Nos. 377 and 452
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1947
    ...1896, c. 378; N.Y.Laws 1901, c. 602. 13 The other cases cited in the per curiam affirmance were Storti v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 138, 141, 22 S.Ct. 72, 73, 46 L.Ed. 120, and Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U.S. 272, 15 S.Ct. 389, 39 L.Ed. 422, both of which disapprove the use of hab......
  • Delph v. Slayton, Civ. A. No. 72-C-17-H.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • May 8, 1972
    ...jurisdiction is a matter of state law exclusively. Rogers v. Peck, 199 U.S. 425, 26 S.Ct. 87, 50 L.Ed. 256 (1905); Storti v. Commonwealth, 183 U.S. 138, 22 S.Ct. 72, 46 L.Ed. 120 (1901); Booker v. Arkansas, 380 F.2d 240 (8th The third allegation of error raises the question of double jeopar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT